Update file metadata

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial specifics: this SETS the full state and omitted fields/tags are cleared. It also discloses the confirm flag as a required safety gate and explains server-side RBAC behavior. No contradiction; the description genuinely enriches the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact (three sentences) with every sentence carrying essential information. It front-loads the purpose, then packs destructive behavior, prerequisites, and auth nuances without unnecessary verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive mutation tool with 5 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage, prerequisites, behavioral side effects, id source, and error interpretation. The absence of return-value details is acceptable given the behavior is fully clarified by the description and schemas.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful cross-parameter context: it aggregates prerequisites (bucketName and confirm=true), explains the destructive full-overwrite semantics for metadata and tags, and reinforces the storageId provenance caveat. This goes beyond simple schema repetition, though some redundancy with schema descriptions exists.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies 'Update a file's metadata (category / description / project) and tags' with a clear verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by pointing to the correct storage id source (search_files / browse_folder / recent_files, not list_files), which differentiates it from read/list operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use the tool and what to avoid: it requires the storage id from indexed listing tools, not list_files. It also names prerequisites (bucketName and confirm=true) and clarifies that RBAC denials mean the API key lacks scope, not a tool failure, guiding troubleshooting.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.